No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

shaggydoo

kwmlondon wrote: »

we need a middle class that you can get into by working hard.

You never got to be middle class by working hard.

You got to be middle class because you went to a grammar not a secondary mod.

You got to be middle class because your father paid for you to train as an accountant or a lawyer. You received no salary.

You got to be middle class because it was perfectly acceptable to ask what your father's occupation was on application forms (this was still true in the 1980s) and in the interview.

You got to be middle class because only the middle classes had access to mortgages and loans.

The middle classes existed because they rigged the market against everyone else.

These privileges are now gone and the middle classes are whining like it's the last days of the Raj or the end of apartheid.

Good Riddance middle classes. The rest of us won't miss you.

kwmlondon

Nop. I totally disagree. My grandfather's parents were poor - his father was a docker - but he got into Cambridge, went into business, ran an oil company and retired to become the bursar of his old college.

Social mobility is shrinking:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/housing-crisis-young-people-willing-to-be-guinea-pigs-to-buy-own-home--e1_zAApppl

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/social-mobility-worse-than-30-years-ago-says-have-i-got-news-for-you-panelist-ian-hislop-10105162.html

http://www.jrf.org.uk/austerity-spotlight-young-people

You can slate me if you like, happy to be the target of your ire if it makes you feel happier to criticise me. I don't really care - I'm not interested in a slapping match. My concerns are social and my worry is for the young of this country and for the future of the UK. We are governed by a narrow group of mainly men from the same small clique of public schools and universities. It is not sustainable and it is not right.

We used to have more social mobility, we used to have more middle-class jobs, we used to have less youth unemployment, we used to have more diversity in our government and civil service.

We need political consensus, across the parties, to address these issues or we will carry on giving our future to a fraction of a percent of the very richest. And even they know that this is destructive, they just can't help themselves.

kwmlondon

setmefree2 wrote: »

TBH I don't think you understand the meaning of hard work. Sounds like you have had a very cushy life. But just because you had an easy life doesn't mean the rest of the boomers did.

When I read your posts I reminded of The Last Days of the Raj. The sun is setting on a section of British Society that's had a very easy life at the expense of the rest of us.

Thank Thatcher for your demise - she taught the working classes that we could out work the middle classes. I'm guessing you voted for her? Oh the irony.

I've been lucky because my hard work has translated into success. Other people have worked hard and gained little, and that's getting to be more common.

I wasn't old enough to vote when thatcher was ousted.

You know virtually nothing about me and your assumptions are wrong.

CLAPTON

kwmlondon wrote: »

Nop. I totally disagree. My grandfather's parents were poor - his father was a docker - but he got into Cambridge, went into business, ran an oil company and retired to become the bursar of his old college.

Social mobility is shrinking:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/housing-crisis-young-people-willing-to-be-guinea-pigs-to-buy-own-home--e1_zAApppl

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/social-mobility-worse-than-30-years-ago-says-have-i-got-news-for-you-panelist-ian-hislop-10105162.html

http://www.jrf.org.uk/austerity-spotlight-young-people

You can slate me if you like, happy to be the target of your ire if it makes you feel happier to criticise me. I don't really care - I'm not interested in a slapping match. My concerns are social and my worry is for the young of this country and for the future of the UK. We are governed by a narrow group of mainly men from the same small clique of public schools and universities. It is not sustainable and it is not right.

We used to have more social mobility, we used to have more middle-class jobs, we used to have less youth unemployment, we used to have more diversity in our government and civil service.

We need political consensus, across the parties, to address these issues or we will carry on giving our future to a fraction of a percent of the very richest. And even they know that this is destructive, they just can't help themselves.

what sort of solutions do you think would help?

the country was ruled by a small clique in your grandfathers/ fathers day too

kwmlondon

CLAPTON wrote: »

what sort of solutions do you think would help?

the country was ruled by a small clique in your grandfathers/ fathers day too

If I had my way? I'd close public schools. Make everyone use the same system. I can't see any reason for their existence.

Second, I'd drastically increase inheritance tax.

I know few will agree with me, but they are the best solutions I can see to the problem. I'd welcome someone coming up with better ideas.

*ducks head under military-grade bullet-proof parapet*

Loughton_Monkey

kwmlondon wrote: »

If I had my way? I'd close public schools. Make everyone use the same system. I can't see any reason for their existence.

Second, I'd drastically increase inheritance tax.

You'd have to increase taxes substantially to pay for the extra school places at taxpayer cost instead of rich-man's cost.

What is it about people who believe that wealth is a bad thing? That wealth should be much more heavily taxed and spent by 'government' rather than individuals?

Today, something approaching 50% of economic activity is laundered through (and under the control of) the government. I would call this "50% Communism".

Seems like you want to go the whole hog and enjoy 100% communism. Or will you protest and say "Oh No! Er.... I am happy at 70% communism, but no more...."

CLAPTON

kwmlondon wrote: »

If I had my way? I'd close public schools. Make everyone use the same system. I can't see any reason for their existence.

Second, I'd drastically increase inheritance tax.

I know few will agree with me, but they are the best solutions I can see to the problem. I'd welcome someone coming up with better ideas.

*ducks head under military-grade bullet-proof parapet*

by public school I assume you mean those run by the private sector?

it seems a very anti libertarian measure and not, in my view consistent with a free democratic society.
In any event many societies are run by small 'elite' interconnected family groups where there is little tradition of private education

drastically increasing inheritance tax would probably mean parents would give their children move of their wealth much earlier : hence making the 'inherited' advantages much greater

kwmlondon

Hey, I'm not saying I've got all the ideas and I'm just putting forward what I think would be of most benefit to most people and least impediment to a smaller number. I'm trying to be utilitarian about it, I don't have an axe to grind or a moral point to get across. However, even Nigel Farrage (from my understanding not exactly a leftie) has said that only the mega-rich can afford public school (and the Telegraph said that so if you're gonna be pedantic take it up with them first).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11467039/Nigel-Farage-My-public-school-had-a-real-social-mix-but-now-only-the-mega-rich-can-afford-the-fees.html

And, yes - I think it would be better for society if parents bought stuff for their kids while they were still alive rather than getting a concentration of wealth. However, I'm only going on what I understand would benefit society more - I'm going for helping the greater number and I'm not claiming it's the only or even best answer. However, I'm waiting for someone to suggest something that would do more to increase social mobility.

MARTYM8`

kwmlondon wrote: »

If I had my way? I'd close public schools. Make everyone use the same system. I can't see any reason for their existence.

Far better to abolish catchment areas and introduce lotteries to allocate school places.

Cameron and Gove are sending their kids to a state secondary school in Westminster - however you need to have a spare £1m+ to buy a property in the catchment area. Comprehensive - but not really!

People moaned about selection by ability via the 11 plus - now we have selection by property prices! Yes - we are all about social mobility - not!

setmefree2

we used to have more middle-class jobs,

What the heck is a middle class job?